Dane DeHaan to play Harry Osborn in The Amazing Spider-Man 2

News Ryan Lambie 3 Dec 2012 - 22:33

Director Marc Webb has confirmed Dane DaHaan will play Harry Osborn in the sequel to The Amazing Spider-Man...

Although not yet a household name, actor Dane DeHaan has already proved his acting talent as the troubled teen Andrew in Josh Trank's superb Chronicle, and as the vulnerable moonshine maker Cricket in John Hillcoat's period drama Lawless.

Now, it seems that DeHaan's fame will grow further, as director Marc Webb has announced that the young actor will be playing Harry Osborn in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. In Sam Raimi's trilogy of Spider-Man movies, Osborn was played by James Franco, so the casting of DeHaan could provide an interesting, potentially darker contrast, and we'll be intrigued to see how his character will play alongside Andrew Garfield's take on Peter Parker.

It's early days for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 yet, but we'll be bringing you plenty more about the movie as it comes in.

Many thanks to our own Nick Horton for pointing out Marc Webb's Twitter announcement.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

He was great in season 4 of True Blood.

You know, there was a time when casting announcements for a Spider-Man movie would set the internet ablaze...

Sony really should have waited longer to reboot this. The Raimi movies are still too fresh in people's minds, I think.

I hated Raimi's trilogy and was very happy when a reboot was announced. I liked The Amazing Spider-Man too, it was terrific. Garfield was a brilliant Spiderman and Peter Parker (Something Tobey Maguire wasn't) and Rhys Ifans was a decent villain. It was just held back by the origin story, but now that's out of the way I'm excited for this. Especially with Jamie Foxx as Electro!

Looking forward to Jamie Fox being electro... vote 1 down for you.

He's a good actor - 2 oscars proves that. He's a versatile actor and has done action movies.

ONE Oscar.

My mistake one oscar, one nomination.

I hope this one's better than the last. I watched that the other night and it was ok, in that damned by faint praise kind of way. The graphics were good, the action was passable, I liked most of the actors in it (I thought Garfield was very good as Spiderman), but honestly it was dull.

The origin story really should have been dealt with in the first 5 minutes, Edgar Wright style, so we could have got on with the rest of the film.

The problem was that even if they'd have done that, the rest of the film was boring too. Perhaps it was the choice of villain or perhaps it was the lack of chemistry between the two leads. (Not helped by them both looking way off 17, unlike Maguire in the last version).

There's not many films I'll willing go take a smoke break during without pausing. I also fell asleep for a good ten minutes early on. I wanted to like it, but just felt flat through out it all. It says something that at times the movie played to no-one when both Wife and I were out the room.

Can't help but think the same as many other people have said and think that they brought this out way too quickly after the last version.

It's a shame. Watching it almost felt like work: 'I've seen most of this once, but now I've got to watch it all over again'.

Thankfully the next night I watched ParaNorman, which was excellent.

agreed but this is great news as he played a blinder as Andrew in Chronicle

Sponsored Links